| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
Further to recent discussions about people taking an interest in buses,
trains, etc. getting "hassle" from the authorities, yesterday evening I had an interesting, non-transport-related variant which I hope will nonetheless be of interest to people on utl and ur. I was getting ready for a guided walk for a private group around St. Pancras and Camden, starting at Mornington Crescent tube. Whenever I get the chance, I always walk the route shortly before actually "doing" the tour, just to make sure nothing untoward has "developed" since my last visit, refresh my memory and so on. Now one of the places I go to is the former burial ground of Saint Martin-in-the-Fields which is perversely just South of Camden Town tube, between Camden Street and Baynham Street. The burial ground has long since been converted to a (rather charming and well-used) local park and was pretty busy when I walked through at about 4.30pm. As I was leaving, I was stopped by two PCSOs and asked what my business there was. Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella! Now it's a bit of a trademark of the walking tours I do that I always have a brolly. Sometimes in crowded places or with biggish groups it can be a good marker and it's become a bit of a "prop" I suppose. With hindsight, I suppose it did look a bit odd in yesterday's lovely sunny weather but I still can't really see that carrying it could in any way be construed as "suspicious behaviour". One other rather baffling remark from the female PCSO when I expressed surprise about this was that " a lot of children use this park". Evidently carrying an umbrella in warm weather and being in possession of a London Tourist Board Blue Badge must be a sure sign of paedophilia. I would stress that they were polite and happy to accept my given explanation of what I was doing there; but I dread to think what they'd have made of me if I'd had a camera! An interesting footnote to this is that later on while waiting to meet the group in front of Mornington Crescent tube, one Ken Livingstone emerged and turned off towards Camden High Street and the statue of Richard Cobden! -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
Ian Jelf gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: An interesting footnote to this is that later on while waiting to meet the group in front of Mornington Crescent tube, one Ken Livingstone emerged and turned off towards Camden High Street and the statue of Richard Cobden! He didn't take advantage of his new-found spare time to join the tour, then? |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:52:43 +0100 someone who may be Ian Jelf
wrote this:- As I was leaving, I was stopped by two PCSOs and asked what my business there was. It was none of their business. Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella! It's good to see that there is so little crime in Camden these days that these semi-police officers have time to waste in this way. They must have been bored as they had no crime to deal with. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:52:43 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote: I was stopped by two PCSOs Ah, plasticops. I suppose they have to do something to justify their salaries... -- James Farrar . @gmail.com |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:52:43 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote: Further to recent discussions about people taking an interest in buses, trains, etc. getting "hassle" from the authorities, yesterday evening I had an interesting, non-transport-related variant which I hope will nonetheless be of interest to people on utl and ur. I was getting ready for a guided walk for a private group around St. Pancras and Camden, starting at Mornington Crescent tube. Whenever I get the chance, I always walk the route shortly before actually "doing" the tour, just to make sure nothing untoward has "developed" since my last visit, refresh my memory and so on. Now one of the places I go to is the former burial ground of Saint Martin-in-the-Fields which is perversely just South of Camden Town tube, between Camden Street and Baynham Street. The burial ground has long since been converted to a (rather charming and well-used) local park and was pretty busy when I walked through at about 4.30pm. As I was leaving, I was stopped by two PCSOs and asked what my business there was. Report them. This is ludicrous and pathetic "activity" on their part. You were going about your lawful business. Did you give them a business card with a link to your website - complete with photo of you with brolley on the home page? Write to Boris - he wants to employ another 440 of these idiots to patrol the buses (god help us!). He needs to know how stupid these people are and how their actions are doing nothing to create a "civil" society. Write to your MP citing the Austen Mitchell motion about this undue harassment of photographers. If you have a Labour MP tell them you won't vote for them unless this ridiculous behaviour is stopped by the Home Secretary. I have written to my MP on exactly this issue and saying this is sufficiently serious for my voting intentions to be affected. Alternatively next time this happens - as it surely will - you can pull the cap off the brolley and fatally stab them with the poison tip and then make good your escape ;-) -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:52:43 +0100, Ian Jelf wrote: Further to recent discussions about people taking an interest in buses, trains, etc. getting "hassle" from the authorities, yesterday evening I had an interesting, non-transport-related variant which I hope will nonetheless be of interest to people on utl and ur. Alternatively next time this happens - as it surely will - you can pull the cap off the brolley and fatally stab them with the poison tip and then make good your escape ;-) Paul, it's absurd, insulting, and unhelpful to suggest that Ian has a poison-tipped or otherwise lethal umbrella. We all know it's an exploding blue badge he's got. tom -- Got a revolution behind my eyes - We got to get up and organise |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Ian Jelf wrote:
As I was leaving, I was stopped by two PCSOs and asked what my business there was. Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella! Well, the events in Stockwell did establish that the police are quite touchy when it comes to unseasonable gear. Perhaps you should equip yourself with a parasol instead? Now it's a bit of a trademark of the walking tours I do that I always have a brolly. Sometimes in crowded places or with biggish groups it can be a good marker and it's become a bit of a "prop" I suppose. I was in Madrid with some friends at the weekend. One of them took hold of the guidebook and proceeded to lead us on a tour round the city, whether we liked it or not. He was quickly dubbed 'umbrella man'. An interesting footnote to this is that later on while waiting to meet the group in front of Mornington Crescent tube, one Ken Livingstone emerged and turned off towards Camden High Street and the statue of Richard Cobden! Ah, maybe it was him they were after? tom -- Got a revolution behind my eyes - We got to get up and organise |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
Ian Jelf wrote:
Further to recent discussions about people taking an interest in buses, trains, etc. getting "hassle" from the authorities, yesterday evening I had an interesting, non-transport-related variant which I hope will nonetheless be of interest to people on utl and ur. I was getting ready for a guided walk for a private group around St. Pancras and Camden, starting at Mornington Crescent tube. Whenever I get the chance, I always walk the route shortly before actually "doing" the tour, just to make sure nothing untoward has "developed" since my last visit, refresh my memory and so on. Now one of the places I go to is the former burial ground of Saint Martin-in-the-Fields which is perversely just South of Camden Town tube, between Camden Street and Baynham Street. The burial ground has long since been converted to a (rather charming and well-used) local park and was pretty busy when I walked through at about 4.30pm. As I was leaving, I was stopped by two PCSOs and asked what my business there was. Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella! You should have answered in Bulgarian :-) During my brief career shepherding foreign students I went in for bright bow ties, so stragglers could ask people where the person in the silly tie was. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On 8 May, 16:52, Ian Jelf wrote:
One other rather baffling remark from the female PCSO when I expressed surprise about this was that " a lot of children use this park". Evidently carrying an umbrella in warm weather and being in possession of a London Tourist Board Blue Badge must be a sure sign of paedophilia. "Think of the children" It's the great unanswerable. Well, one of them, alongside "health and safety". Ian |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008 18:11:48 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:52:43 +0100, Ian Jelf wrote: Further to recent discussions about people taking an interest in buses, trains, etc. getting "hassle" from the authorities, yesterday evening I had an interesting, non-transport-related variant which I hope will nonetheless be of interest to people on utl and ur. Alternatively next time this happens - as it surely will - you can pull the cap off the brolley and fatally stab them with the poison tip and then make good your escape ;-) Paul, it's absurd, insulting, and unhelpful to suggest that Ian has a poison-tipped or otherwise lethal umbrella. We all know it's an exploding blue badge he's got. I do apologise for making such a fundamental error. Despite meeting him twice I have yet to see the exploding blue badge - perhaps I am blessed? -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
"The Real Doctor" wrote in message ... On 8 May, 16:52, Ian Jelf wrote: One other rather baffling remark from the female PCSO when I expressed surprise about this was that " a lot of children use this park". Evidently carrying an umbrella in warm weather and being in possession of a London Tourist Board Blue Badge must be a sure sign of paedophilia. "Think of the children" It's the great unanswerable. Well, one of them, alongside "health and safety". Ian Wasn't there a suspicious man with an open umbrella when JFK was assassinated? C'mon own up! Paul |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 08 May 2008 18:00:52 +0100 someone who may be Paul Corfield
wrote this:- Alternatively next time this happens - as it surely will - you can pull the cap off the brolley and fatally stab them with the poison tip and then make good your escape ;-) No need to pull off a cap, which might give the game away. The poisoned ball is fired through the end of the umbrella by compressed air. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008 18:28:10 +0100 someone who may be Tom Anderson
wrote this:- Well, the events in Stockwell did establish that the police are quite touchy when it comes to unseasonable gear. Except that the man murdered by the police at Stockwell was not wearing anything unseasonable, despite various false claims afterwards that he was. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
In article , Ian Jelf
writes Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella! With hindsight, I suppose it did look a bit odd in yesterday's lovely sunny weather Some years ago I was at a technical conference in London. The conference itself was at Lancaster Gate but the evening social was at Tower Bridge (on the gantries). One of the (sponsored) free gifts was an umbrella. So one July, on a scorching hot day, you got to see 500 geeks carrying umbrellas as they rode the Underground from Lancaster Gate to Tower Bridge. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:03:58 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote: In article , Ian Jelf writes Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella! With hindsight, I suppose it did look a bit odd in yesterday's lovely sunny weather Some years ago I was at a technical conference in London. The conference itself was at Lancaster Gate but the evening social was at Tower Bridge (on the gantries). One of the (sponsored) free gifts was an umbrella. So one July, on a scorching hot day, you got to see 500 geeks carrying umbrellas as they rode the Underground from Lancaster Gate to Tower Bridge. If it is summer they are called parasols. (until it rains...) |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 8 May, 16:52, Ian Jelf wrote: One other rather baffling remark from the female PCSO when I expressed surprise about this was that " a lot of children use this park". Evidently carrying an umbrella in warm weather and being in possession of a London Tourist Board Blue Badge must be a sure sign of paedophilia. "Think of the children" It's the great unanswerable. It's easily answerable - "what has this got to do with road safety?". Traffic accidents kill and harm orders of magnitude more children than paedophiles or other easy targets. And yet strangely, almost nobody seems inclined to do anything about them. tom -- For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work, so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important, and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 18:28:10 +0100 someone who may be Tom Anderson wrote this:- Well, the events in Stockwell did establish that the police are quite touchy when it comes to unseasonable gear. Except that the man murdered by the police at Stockwell was not wearing anything unseasonable, despite various false claims afterwards that he was. Curses! I was just reading up on the Stockwell thing. He wasn't running from the police either, was he? It really was a completely shocking business. And yet there are still people who want to give the police *more* powers. This is a bit like the people who think the solution to the credit crunch is to give the banks more money and ease the regulations. I despair. tom -- For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work, so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important, and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 18:11:48 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:52:43 +0100, Ian Jelf wrote: Further to recent discussions about people taking an interest in buses, trains, etc. getting "hassle" from the authorities, yesterday evening I had an interesting, non-transport-related variant which I hope will nonetheless be of interest to people on utl and ur. Alternatively next time this happens - as it surely will - you can pull the cap off the brolley and fatally stab them with the poison tip and then make good your escape ;-) Paul, it's absurd, insulting, and unhelpful to suggest that Ian has a poison-tipped or otherwise lethal umbrella. We all know it's an exploding blue badge he's got. I do apologise for making such a fundamental error. Despite meeting him twice I have yet to see the exploding blue badge - perhaps I am blessed? You evidently haven't annoyed him. Yet. tom -- For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work, so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important, and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:25:42 +0100 someone who may be Tom Anderson
wrote this:- I was just reading up on the Stockwell thing. He wasn't running from the police either, was he? Correct. The murder victim did hear a train and, like many other people, hurry/run part of the way and then sit in the train. However he was almost certainly never aware that the thugs who first made a lot of noise and then burst into the coach in a threatening manner were police officers, so it was impossible for him to run away from the police. It really was a completely shocking business. And yet there are still people who want to give the police *more* powers. Indeed. The report by the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission may be downloaded from http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/index/resources/evidence_reports/investigation_reports/ipcc_resources_stockwellone.htm. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
Tom Anderson wrote:
Traffic accidents kill and harm orders of magnitude more children than paedophiles or other easy targets. And yet strangely, almost nobody seems inclined to do anything about them. Oh they are. The general policy is to teach children to be petrified of motor vehicles and parents to keep them inside them at all costs. Should anyone wish, despite this, to cycle, it is made clear to them that they are being suicidally reckless and are unlikely to survive long - especially if they fail to wear a plastic hat which is rather less strong than their skull. The idea that perhaps the source of the danger should be tackled is still too radical for those with the power to do it. Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org. |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Should anyone wish, despite this, to cycle, it is made clear to them that they are being suicidally reckless and are unlikely to survive long Some cyclists are, without doubt, reckless, and are a danger not only to themselves but to others. When I were a lad, such people were the exception. Perhaps they still are, but it seems to be less of an exception than it was. Over the past year, I can recall one situation I observed where I felt that a motorist had potentially caused danger to a cyclist. It would be four or five where the cause of the danger was the cyclist. .... and that's before we get on to the question of whether cyclists have lights and visible reflectors when they go out at night... -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486561.html (43 008 at Crewe, 28 Apr 2001) |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:16:00 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
wrote this:- Some cyclists are, without doubt, reckless, and are a danger not only to themselves but to others. That is true of most groups of people. When I were a lad, such people were the exception. Perhaps they still are, but it seems to be less of an exception than it was. Another possibility is that your perception of danger has changed as you got older. Over the past year, I can recall one situation I observed where I felt that a motorist had potentially caused danger to a cyclist. It would be four or five where the cause of the danger was the cyclist. How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist? While most things are possible it is not easy. Motorists are inside a box, so even of the cyclist crashes into them at high speed they are likely to walk away with no injuries. It is not the same the other way round. Note that some motorists have claimed not to have noticed that they were killing a cyclist or pedestrian, that is how isolated some are from the world outside their little box. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:16:00 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley wrote this:- Some cyclists are, without doubt, reckless, and are a danger not only to themselves but to others. That is true of most groups of people. When I were a lad, such people were the exception. Perhaps they still are, but it seems to be less of an exception than it was. Another possibility is that your perception of danger has changed as you got older. I could also simply be in a position to observe more of this than I did before. It may also be a northern thing. One of the more surprising aspects of living in Manchester was the casual abandon with which pedestrians would step off the kerb without checking first that it wasn't going to be fatal for them. Over the past year, I can recall one situation I observed where I felt that a motorist had potentially caused danger to a cyclist. It would be four or five where the cause of the danger was the cyclist. How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist? While most things are possible it is not easy. Motorists are inside a box, so even of the cyclist crashes into them at high speed they are likely to walk away with no injuries. It is not the same the other way round. In the only one of the incidents I referred to above where *I* was the motorist, there was a cyclist ahead of me who was on the nearside and then suddenly, with no signal, and not even a backward glance swerved across the road in front of me to make a right turn. Because I had slowed down as I usually do when approaching cyclists, the car which was behind me was then very close on my bumper, so I couldn't brake hard. My only option was myself to swerve right and thus cross the centre line. Fortunately, there was nothing coming the other way. If there had been, I don't know how I would have come out of it unscathed. As I passed him, I observed he was wearing an i-Pod, and moreover, the expression on his face suggested he was oblivious to the incident which almost unfolded behind him. Note that some motorists have claimed not to have noticed that they were killing a cyclist or pedestrian, that is how isolated some are from the world outside their little box. Quite. Nowhere have I alleged that motorists are paragons of virtue. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632854.html (33 054 with assorted vans at Reading - 17 Jan 1981) |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
David Hansen wrote:
How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist? By flying head-first through the window of a car (I have heard of cyclist who did this, although no-one was injured in that instance). Also by causing cars to brake or swerve and then suffer collisions with other vehicles or street furniture. |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 07:19:40PM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:
I do apologise for making such a fundamental error. Despite meeting him twice I have yet to see the exploding blue badge - perhaps I am blessed? Surely if you were Mr. Blessed YOU WOULD TYPE LIKE THIS? -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive You don't need to spam good porn |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:01:58 +0100 someone who may be "John Rowland"
wrote this:- How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist? By flying head-first through the window of a car As I said in my next sentence, which you snipped, "While most things are possible it is not easy." Presumably this was a side window and it might have been open too? -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:01:58 +0100 someone who may be "John Rowland" wrote this:- How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist? By flying head-first through the window of a car Presumably this was a side window and it might have been open too? It was the back window and it wasn't openable (or it was, but it wasn't closeable!). The cyclist could not remove his head without the assistance of the driver. |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:10:20 +0100 someone who may be "John Rowland"
wrote this:- How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist? By flying head-first through the window of a car Presumably this was a side window and it might have been open too? It was the back window and it wasn't openable (or it was, but it wasn't closeable!). The cyclist could not remove his head without the assistance of the driver. And they went far enough into the car to cause danger to the motorist? -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Fri, 9 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 07:19:40PM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: I do apologise for making such a fundamental error. Despite meeting him twice I have yet to see the exploding blue badge - perhaps I am blessed? Surely if you were Mr. Blessed YOU WOULD TYPE LIKE THIS? +1 tom -- I could tell you a great many more particulars but suppose that you are tired of it by this time. -- John Backhouse, Trainspotter Zero |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:03:58 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote: In article , Ian Jelf writes Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella! With hindsight, I suppose it did look a bit odd in yesterday's lovely sunny weather Some years ago I was at a technical conference in London. The conference itself was at Lancaster Gate but the evening social was at Tower Bridge (on the gantries). One of the (sponsored) free gifts was an umbrella. So one July, on a scorching hot day, you got to see 500 geeks carrying umbrellas as they rode the Underground from Lancaster Gate to Tower Bridge. Wouldn't a true geek walk to Marble Arch and take the no. 15? -- Ken |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
"John Rowland" wrote in message ... David Hansen wrote: On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:01:58 +0100 someone who may be "John Rowland" wrote this:- How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist? By flying head-first through the window of a car Presumably this was a side window and it might have been open too? It was the back window and it wasn't openable (or it was, but it wasn't closeable!). The cyclist could not remove his head without the assistance of the driver. Recently, in Poole IIRC, a cyclist went into the back of a van that had stopped at a pedestrian crossing with such force he died - what might have happened to the pedestrians if the van hadn't protected them? -- Steve Huddy http://trainsferriesbuses.co.uk |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
"Chris Tolley" wrote in message ... Colin McKenzie wrote: Should anyone wish, despite this, to cycle, it is made clear to them that they are being suicidally reckless and are unlikely to survive long Some cyclists are, without doubt, reckless, and are a danger not only to themselves but to others. When I were a lad, such people were the exception. Perhaps they still are, but it seems to be less of an exception than it was. If cycling has recently doubled, as it has, then half the cyclists on the road are novices. If they have only recently taken cycling up, they must be idiots, for not having done so earlier. Jeremy Parker |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
"Ken" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:03:58 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote: In article , Ian Jelf writes Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella! With hindsight, I suppose it did look a bit odd in yesterday's lovely sunny weather Some years ago I was at a technical conference in London. The conference itself was at Lancaster Gate but the evening social was at Tower Bridge (on the gantries). One of the (sponsored) free gifts was an umbrella. So one July, on a scorching hot day, you got to see 500 geeks carrying umbrellas as they rode the Underground from Lancaster Gate to Tower Bridge. Wouldn't a true geek walk to Marble Arch and take the no. 15? A true geek would walk to Marble Arch and take the F. Peter Smyth |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Fri, 09 May 2008 10:16:00 +0000, Chris Tolley wrote:
snip Over the past year, I can recall one situation I observed where I felt that a motorist had potentially caused danger to a cyclist. It would be four or five where the cause of the danger was the cyclist. ... and that's before we get on to the question of whether cyclists have lights and visible reflectors when they go out at night... As a pedestrian, I feel threatened by both bad drivers and bad cyclists - and I certainly accept that there are bad pedestrians as well. However, in general driving offences in towns (where I am most likely to be walking) are illegal parking and speeding. What they don't do is to drive at night with no lights, to drive the wrong way up one-way streets, or to to crash red traffic lights. I see this behaviour from cyclists just about every day, and I am not exaggerating. -- Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl. |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
In article ,
David Buttery wrote: As a pedestrian, I feel threatened by both bad drivers and bad cyclists - and I certainly accept that there are bad pedestrians as well. However, in general driving offences in towns (where I am most likely to be walking) are illegal parking and speeding. What they don't do is to drive at night with no lights, to drive the wrong way up one-way streets, I see that (and making a illegal left turn that conflicts with the green phase of a pelican) regularly from car drivers. or to to crash red traffic lights. I reckon you'd see that about one cycle of the lights in 2 or 3 (from cars). You'd probably see more if the impatient car could overtake the law abiding one. I see this behaviour from cyclists just about every day, and I am not exaggerating. Illegality is endemic on the roads, I agree, and no mode of transport is exempt. -- Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3! -- Flash |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
In article , Ian Jelf writes Surprised at being asked, I was staggered when they said that their grounds for suspicion was that I was carrying.......an umbrella! With hindsight, I suppose it did look a bit odd in yesterday's lovely sunny weather Some years ago I was at a technical conference in London. The conference itself was at Lancaster Gate but the evening social was at Tower Bridge (on the gantries). One of the (sponsored) free gifts was an umbrella. So one July, on a scorching hot day, you got to see 500 geeks carrying umbrellas as they rode the Underground from Lancaster Gate to Tower Bridge. Even better, almost 20 years ago I was at a large international sales conference in Jamaica. We were all given a world-time clock as a gift. I don't think anyone confessed to security that we were all carrying an electronic black box timer device. Nobody had any problems with security, and, of course, no planes got blown-up. |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
In message
David Hansen wrote: On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:01:58 +0100 someone who may be "John Rowland" wrote this:- How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist? By flying head-first through the window of a car As I said in my next sentence, which you snipped, "While most things are possible it is not easy." Presumably this was a side window and it might have been open too? The case I saw he went through the rear window of an estate. To add to the fun it was a policeman! -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:02:21 +0100, Mike Bristow wrote:
snip or to crash red traffic lights. I reckon you'd see that about one cycle of the lights in 2 or 3 (from cars). You'd probably see more if the impatient car could overtake the law abiding one. snip Hmmm. In terms of cars being naughty and going through lights just after they've changed to red, you may have a point. However, cyclists seem much more brazen about jumping lights in the *middle* of the red phase. There is no question that for the set of lights I use most often (the pelican crossing in Bewdley town centre) cyclists are *much* worse. -- Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl. |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:01:40 +0100 someone who may be "Bridgwatarian"
wrote this:- Recently, in Poole IIRC, a cyclist went into the back of a van that had stopped at a pedestrian crossing with such force he died - what might have happened to the pedestrians if the van hadn't protected them? Probably very little. Probably some minor injuries, if the cyclist had struck any of them. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
This Photography Lark is Getting Ridiculous
In message
David Hansen wrote: On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:01:40 +0100 someone who may be "Bridgwatarian" wrote this:- Recently, in Poole IIRC, a cyclist went into the back of a van that had stopped at a pedestrian crossing with such force he died - what might have happened to the pedestrians if the van hadn't protected them? Probably very little. Probably some minor injuries, if the cyclist had struck any of them. So a hansen ploughing into a group of old age pensioners at a speed fast enough to kill the hansen if he hits another vehicle is only going to cause a few minor injuries. That's all right then. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:17 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk